CONNECT
President Obama Requested the Removal of Indefinite Military Detention Exemptions for US Citizens
NationofChange / Special Report
Published: Friday 23 December 2011
Senator Levin: “I wonder whether the senator is familiar with the fact that the language [in the National Defense Authorization Act] which precluded the application of section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee, and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and Lawful residents would not be subject to this section?”
Here is the full-text of a presidential order to indefinitely detain a US citizen under military conditions as an enemy combatant:
TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
Based on the information available to me from all sources,
REDACTED
In accordance with the Constitution and consistent with the laws of the United States, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (Public Law 107-40);
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces, hereby DETERMINE for the United States of America that:
(1) Jose Padilla, who is under the control of the Department of Justice and who is a U.S. citizen, is, and at the time he entered the United States in May 2002 was, an enemy combatant;
(2) Mr. Padilla is closely associated with al Qaeda, an international terrorist organization with which the United States is at war;
(3) Mr. Padilla engaged in conduct that constituted hostile and warlike acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism that had the aim to cause injury to or adverse effects on the United States;
(4) Mr. Padilla possesses intelligence, including intelligence about personnel and activities of al Qaeda, that, if communicated to the U.S., would aid U.S. efforts to prevent attacks by al Qaeda on the United States or its armed forces, other governmental personnel, or citizens;
(5) Mr. Padilla represents a continuing, present and grave danger to the national security of the United States, and detention of Mr. Padilla is necessary to prevent him from aiding al Qaeda in its efforts to attack the United States or its armed forces, other governmental personnel, or citizens;
(6) it is in the interest of the United States that the Secretary of Defense detain Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant; and
(7) it is REDACTED consistent with U.S. law and the laws of war for the Secretary of Defense to detain Mr. Padilla as enemy combatant. Accordingly, you are directed to receive Mr. Padilla from the Department of Justice and to detain him as an enemy combatant.
DATE: June 9, 2002 Signature
[George Bush]
In September of 2005 the Fourth Circuit of Appeals ruled on whether or not the president had the authority to declare a US citizen (as above) an enemy combatant and then indefinitely detain him. The court ruled in the president's favor.
The National Defense Authorization Act that originally passed through the Armed Services Committee was approved with provisions that explicitly exempted US citizens from the indefinite detention language of section 1031 (which was re-numbered to 1021 immediately before it was passed) of the bill. This would have meant the legislation would have reduced the president’s powers to detain US citizens.
President Obama's administration intervened behind the scenes and requested that the specific exemptions for US citizens from section 1031 (now 1021) be removed.
The reasons for the President's veto threat were reported in such a way to suggest that the President was trying to protect US citizens from questionable detention laws, the ACLU reported that Obama was threatening to veto the bill over the indefinite detention provisions, but new evidence shows this was not the case.
Answering a question from Senator Udall about why the ASC did not exempt US citizens before bringing the bill to the full congress, Senator Levin (and chairman of the Armed Services Committee) explained, “I wonder whether the senator is familiar with the fact that the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee, and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and Lawful residents would not be subject to this section?” and continuing, “Is the senator familiar with the fact it was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the Committee and that we removed it at the request of the administration, that would have said the act - that this determination - would not apply to US citizens and lawful residents. I'm just wondering, was the senator familiar with the fact it was the administration which asked us to remove the very language, the absence of which is now objected to by the senator from Illinois?”
The Obama administration specifically requested the removal of language which protected US citizens from indefinite detention by the military. After multiple attempts at amending the bill before final passage, the new language promises - instead of an explicit exemption - that it will not alter “existing law” in relation to the President’s authority to detain American citizens without trial.
“Existing law” appears to already give the president the authority to detain US citizens as enemy combatants without trial. Jose Padilla vs the 4th Circuit of Appeals ruled that the President did have the authority to indefinitely detain enemy combatants, regardless of if they are a US citizen or not. Even before this, and even less well known, is that the United States of America has been in a presidentially declared state of emergency since September 14, 2001. While the state of emergency has a two year limitation rule under the National Emergencies Act, President Obama renewed it in 2009 and 2010, and again in September of 2011 so it is still in effect today.
From Wikipedia:
At least two constitutional rights are subject to revocation during a national state of emergency:
1. The right of habeas corpus, under Article 1, Section 9;
2. The right to a grand jury for members of the National Guard when in actual service, under Fifth Amendment.
In the Fourth Circuit of Appeals ruling on whether or not the president had the authority to declare US citizens enemy combatants and indefinitely detain them, the court ruled that the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress after the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 granted him the authority to do so.
Padilla v. - Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
We understand the plurality’s reasoning in Hamdi to be that the AUMF authorizes the President to detain all those who qualify as "enemy combatants" within the meaning of the laws of war, such power being universally accepted under the laws of war as necessary in order to prevent the return of combatants to the battlefield during 10 PADILLA v. HANFT conflict. Id. at 2640-41. Given that Padilla qualifies as an enemy combatant under both the definition adopted by the Court in Quirin and the definition accepted by the controlling opinion in Hamdi, his military detention as an enemy combatant by the President is unquestionably authorized by the AUMF as a fundamental incident to the President’s prosecution of the war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
The Bush administration did give Padilla his day in court and eventually successfully convicted and sentenced him, but this does not change the ruling which determined he did not have to.
Press Secretary Jay Carney released a written statement about Obama’s decision, “We have concluded that the [NDAA’s] language does not challenge or constrain the President’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people,” and stated “The President’s senior advisers will not recommend a veto.”
Top Stories
By Green Shadow Cabinet
31 comments on "President Obama Requested the Removal of Indefinite Military Detention Exemptions for US Citizens"
January 05, 2012 11:52am
I received information saying this article and video ARE WRONG.
This website claims the video was edited to show something that didn't happen.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/ndaa-breitbarted
It claims OBAMA NEVER REQUESTED THE ELIMINATION OF GUARANTIES.
However, in the C-Span video it never shows the section of Senator Carl Levin saying the things that prompted this article. So it is still not clear how and from where this video was doctored.
December 26, 2011 11:20am
I think that the very fact that, when the Obama administration was contemplating requesting the removal of the necessary language of the bill that,
as the editorial states, it was falsely advertized as an attempt by the administration to "protect the American people." It seems to me that to lie
to the people about such an important issue as whether or not US citizens can
be "indefinitely detained" (imprisoned) is, in itself, an impeachable offense.
Why? Because if a president can lie to get legislation passed which would allow
him to call a US citizen an "enemy combatant, and thus "detain" him or her "indefinitely," without trial, is to be a violation of the Constitutional right to
equal and fair treatment before the law. The questions would arise:
a. what constitutes activities by such an individual to be determined as
violating the national security of the United States?
b. At what point do those activities cross the line from acts of protest, or expressing citizens' opinions in public ways, to activities involved with actual
plots against persons, or government property in such ways as would threaten the national security of the United States?
It seems that any and all US citizens have the right of an open, free and fair trial in order to declare such a person, or persons as enemy combatants. If they are citizens, the Constitution guarantees them the right to open and fair trial.
Of course, wars that are provably started by the untruths told by a sitting president of the United States, or his subordinate officers, such as what Vincent Bugliosi says happened when George W. Bush failed to tell the truth about why we spent a total of about $1 trillion in Iraq instead of going after bin Laden who they say lived ten years after the 9/11 attacks, many of these "enemy combatants" might not have taken the law into their own hands by doing or saying whatever they did or said.
I would be sure that all politicians be required to watch, monitored by ordinary citizens picked by others at random, the "Farewell Address To The Nation" as delivered on January 17, 1961 by Republican president, Dwight D. Eiwenhower.
It would open their eyes up as to the secret wiles and fabricated lies of the military and the weapons manufacturing corporations who tell Congress what to vote for and how much money taxpayers should be required to spend for the
high-priced weapons that motivate the paid under the table lies told by the politicians to tell such lies as Bush did about Iraq to the American people.
The above is now proven to be the reason for President Kennedy's assassination in Dallas, Texas, November 22, 1963. See www.jfkmurdersolved.com for the detailed, documented "rest of the story," as radio host, Paul Harvey used to say.
December 24, 2011 1:06pm
I agree with most of what you say. I voted for Obama and will vote again if only because he is the lesser evil. However we are not at war against a terrorist threat. You can only be at war against a nation not an idea. T fight ideas you need 'hearts and minds' strategies not combat. The war against Iraq was not against terrorists. None existed there before the US invasion of that country which had been Americas ally against Iran. Now Iraq is full of terrorists. The war in Afghanistan has achieved nothing except create vast numbers of terrorists. Usama bin Ladin was not killed due to the war and that could have been achieved in the manner that it was achieved, by a small secret attack but with the savings of thousands of lives and billions of dollars! The war had nothing to do with it and has merely increased security risks to America. Watch this and think againhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded
December 28, 2011 10:08pm
Obama is not the lesser evil. I voted for Obama and he is more of the same and worse. Ron Paul is the only candidate heading in the right direction on the big issues of foreign policy, economics, & civil rights.
December 25, 2011 12:03pm
Let's also not forget that our corporate controlled government is happy to create as many terrorist's as possible. Terrorist's provde the fear that is then aggressively marketed to us by our "leaders". Our kneejerk acceptance of this fear allows us to support their siphoning of our dollars into their coffers. War is good business, after all. Once they have all our money, which won't be long, the Bill of Rights will soon be as elusive as a job is today.
December 24, 2011 2:35pm
Let's not forget that the "war" in Afghanistan also accomplished the siphoning of hundred's of billions of dollars from the US economy. YEAAAAA!!!! Sounds like "mission accomplished!"
December 24, 2011 9:52am
The right to bear arms was written into the Constitution just for this type of Law. It was written by the Founding Father's, to allow American citizens the right to protect and arm themselves against Gov't tyranny and heavy-handed oppression.
How can anyone else in the world take the US seriously, when the Executive Branch approves and supports such hypocritical BS.
I'm Unconditional, so this toxic and Unconstitutional BS is irrelevant to me, but the 99% and the rest of the world should not be too happy...at least American's can still bear arms...so far.
December 25, 2011 11:49am
What good will your arms provide when you are the center of attraction at an "enhanced interrogation" session in some location unknown to you, your friends, and family. All because you were determined to be acting against the interests of America for something as innocuous as a letter to the editor.
December 24, 2011 1:37am
I believed President Obama's campaign commitments to transparency, elimination of torture, and ending an untenable, unjustifiable war in Iraq. On every front, the real Obama has been a total disappointment. His administration has been more secretive than the Bush administration (I've heard that there wasn't even disclosure of the schedule for the award his administration received for "openness" - if you can believe that perverse joke) and has fully and actively participated in everyone of the actions he criticized the Bush administration for taking in prosecuting the wars. The President's role in pushing through Sec 1021 (formerly 1031) in its present wording, makes the excuses offered by Obama apologists irrelevant.
With Sec 1021, Congress and President Obama will have established by legislative and executive action a tool that can be used to effectively gut large parts of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 14th amendments to The Constitution. It doesn't eliminate the amendments, it just makes any portions of the amendments affecting the arrest, prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment of American citizens irrelevant for any government official who decides to use the war on terror as an excuse for his actions against a US citizen. And make no mistake - If the law is on the books, government official(s) somewhere, sometime will get around to using it against someone they have a grudge against, even if the person has done nothing wrong.
It doesn't matter if your political leanings are left, right, or center, the effect will be the same if someone in the government decides to accuse you of being a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. They won't have to prove it, they only have to convince someone to sign the order authorizing the military to detain you indefinitely. You get no trial and no opportunity to challenge your accuser. President Obama asked for it and Congress willingly gave it to him. This type of regulation is the same process that has been used by the Chinese Communist Party for decades to imprison democratic dissidents without trial, but is also used at the local level in China to imprison people who object to having their property confiscated by corrupt officials.
It still bothers me that the language I have to use to describe the risk to our freedoms is similar to the rhetoric used by survivalists. but that is the unfortunate reality of the challenge to our liberty.
Before I saw this article, I was doing some research on a completely different subject and followed a thread that lead to a compilation of famous quotations. By coincidence, one set of quotations was on the price of liberty. It makes interesting reading in the context of the potential use and misuse of Sec 1021 of the NDAA. See http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm
December 25, 2011 12:29pm
You are absolutely right. Now if we can pull most of America away from the Kardashian marathon, we might find one or two capable of understanding how tenuous their future is. Personally, I'm tired of lazy, ignorant Americans too obsessed with trivial pursuits to care about their future. They fully deserve what is surely coming.
December 23, 2011 7:05pm
Obama is really just the project manager for the US Empire project. Even if he wanted to do the right thing he is out flanked, out gunned and out smarted every step of the way.
It is squarely up to us.
The powers that are running this show need us a hell of a lot more than we need them.
Imagine what kind of power that gives us if we come together and use it.
We can shut this fricken machine down.
Or we can vote democrat or republican and bleat quietly as we are herded into detention camps.
Wrong. They dont need us and in fact would be a whole lot better off without the lot of us using up resources and 'taking' jobs from their kids. Don't kid yourself about your importance.
December 23, 2011 8:19pm
Yup. I'm supporting Paul, but he'd get 'gated or assassinated if he was too successful...still got to try. Occupy and vote 3rd party, spread truth...
December 23, 2011 4:32pm
FISHINGRIVER is correct, while LIBERTYBELL77 is pathetically wrong.
Obama, the GOP, the DEMS and Wall St are getting ready for the onslaught coming when the economy collapses, as planned, and they will use these new powers to action the totalitarian fist to squash any dissent against the heavy handed measures they have in store for us.
GET READY. THIS IS YET THE CLEAREST CLUE of what is coming!!
Obama is actually worse than McCain could have been, because the leftist forces would have been united against all these measures if McCain tried them , while today the left is divided in how to react to the Emperor Obama's NO CLOTHES behavior. Some like LibertyBell777 still support his fascism.
Amazing how wrong I was when I supported Obama wholeheartedly during his campaign in 2008. WHAT A DISASTER...... what a deep disappointment.
Obama is a Constitutional Lawyer. He has no excuse as Bush did when he relied on lawyers.
BARACK OBAMA IS A TROJAN HORSE delivered with flowers to achieve our doom.
December 24, 2011 8:07am
"...Now, the two bills are in conference committee. The chairmen and ranking members of the Armed Services Committee — known as "the Big Four" — have been having one secret meeting after another over the past few days to quickly write a final bill. Who are the Big Four? From the Senate, it is Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) who were the very two who had secretly written the Senate indefinite detention provisions. The third member is the House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), who is the person who wrote the House indefinite detention provisions without so much as a hearing. And the fourth member is the House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who courageously fought the indefinite detention provisions on the House floor."
From http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/behind-closed-doors-congress-...
December 23, 2011 2:12pm
The Obama apologists on this thread are overlooking the fact that by signing this, Obama codified the squashing of our rights. This is what Bush had temporarily managed to get though now written in stone. They will never reverse this. He signed the patriot act with no changes. He kept rendition torture making the US a torture state because presidents of both parties are now signed on. He didn't compromise by signing NDAA because he didn't ask for anything. Those who are making excuses for him are a huge contributor to the destruction of our rights. They are the ones who told everyone, "Don't worry, he will veto". This had the effect of silencing opposition when it was needed most. As soon as Obama betrayed us, they changed their tune and now sound more like Bushbots claiming that "we are at war". The endless war, and endless corporate favoritism is what is destroying Democrats. Not infighting. They have abandoned people and not one of them can tell you what the party now stands for without lying and through their teeth.
December 23, 2011 2:11pm
This bill is no different than the enabling act voted by the German parlliment, on behalf of Hitler. It suspends the Constitution, establishes martial law. But given that this President has assasinated US citizens using secret evidence, and waged a war without Congressional approval, this is not his first usurpation of the Constitution. And, yes, it is no different than George W. Bush, and Cheney, except it is worse. Now, Obama seems poised to start a war against Iran, or giving Netanyahu the green light to do so, and such a measure as contained in the NDAA, has to be seen in that light. Before, it was Cheney, and then Bush, who deserved impeachment, now it is Obama. Perhaps if anyone in Congress had the guts to do it, we might get a REAL Democrat into the White House.
December 23, 2011 7:42pm
What's wrong with the Tea Party? They are neocons! They fight not for liberty, but for MORE OF THE SAME BUSH 43! THEY ARE SARAH PALINS! Maybe it's 3rd-Party time- President Obama has DEFINITELY turned out to be NOT the Constitutionalist ACLU-TYPE Bill-Of-Rights man I once thought he was! Is this his idea of "compromise"? IF SO, HE'S GOING TO LOSE PROGRESSIVE SUPPORT! The ReThuglicans sure aren't gonna "cross the aisle" and "reason together"! Mr. President, stay true to us - the 99%! We know the $$ pressures on him- (I donated to him yesterday) but this is a "CHAMBERLAIN COMPROMISE" that lets fascism and Anti-Freedom forces through OUR doors!
December 23, 2011 7:32pm
THIS is a true horror! ABSOLUTELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL- BUT NOT TO THE 5-4 NEOCON "MAJORITY" ON THE SUPREME COURT! HOW COULD OBAMA DO THIS TO US? I'm rethinking now...... maybe Ron Paul!
December 23, 2011 1:38pm
You know progressives and liberals would do a lot better as a movement if they didn't constantly complain and try to destroy their own! (not saying that all do - but for those that do). Everyone has their own inflated expectations of what can be done by one person. Newsflash. No one person can be perfect to millions. Recognize who is fighting on the right side and support that person. Right now, that person is Obama. Not perfect, but definitely working for the 99%. And keep in mind, the voters in 2010 chose to give the crazy Tea Baggers a seat at the table and Obama has had to fight and compromise to get anything done at all. Everyone complains, but I think he has done exceptionally well. Believe it or not - we are getting a lot of what we want and there is still time to get more, people! Obama 2012.
December 23, 2011 7:46pm
THAT IS *MY* DEFAULT POSITION TOO! But the Repub. practice of saying "NO!" to EVERYTHING Obama proposes is WORKING! TOUGHEN UP MR. PRESIDENT! STAND HARD FOR THE CONSTITUTION! THAT'S WHAT WE ELECTED YOU FOR! TALK WON'T DO IT! ORGANIZING AND CLEAR POLICIES WILL, NOT FLIP-FLOPPING THE BILL OF RIGHTS!
December 23, 2011 1:35pm
Fishingriver has said it rightly. This bill is a fascist usurpation of our freedom. Most US Citizens take for granted that we have the right to speech, assemble, travel, etc... This article makes it clear the the federal government had suspended the right of habeas corpus since the OBVIOUSLY PHONY TERROR EVENT of 9/11. The 4th circuit ruled that FAKE PRESIDENT Bush had the power to permanently detain a US citizen. Now this bill has enshrined this power in legislation.
The Udall/Levin exchange might help to assuage the consciences of some, and allow them to believe that Levin et al on the Senate committee had some noble intent. But the story of LYING ROBOT Obama forcing the committee to remove the saving language of 1021/1031 is just another false dialectic. Any senator who voted for the piece of crap legislation is an enemy of the Constitution. Period.
People better wake up. The OTHER PARTY is not the enemy. It is BOTH PARTIES. The federal government is full of liars who don't give a rat's ass about the Constitution, or the Republic, or preserving our LIBERTY IN LAW. They are creating a world government that is run by Criminal Bankers.
December 23, 2011 1:23pm
You have your facts wrong. Obama did no more than extend the State of Emergency to keep his options open. You can bury your head in the sand as long as you like but we are at war against terrorist threat. It is Obama's job to keep us safe and that is a big responsibility. Easy for someone that isn't responsible for millions of people to complain about the person bearing that responsibility. As for the provision in the NDAA that mentions indefinite detaining of American citizens on American soil, that was factored out by a signing statement by Obama. (to clarify, Obama did not go against the constitutional rights of citizen Americans by passing the NDAA or fail Americans somehow by not vetoing the NDAA.) The signing statement excluded specifically that one provision which everyone is concerned about.
Some people are never happy. Get a president who fights for the 99% and tries to get tax breaks, healthcare, and workers right for them, works to end discrimination of gays in the military and succeeds, works to protect consumers, works for tougher regulations on banks, works to ensure equal pay and equal rights for women, and on and on and it just isn't enough.
Local police are responsible to their citizens for their actions and I don't agree with how wall street protestors have been treated by some law enforcement, but no one is threatening to incarcerate without representation any Occupy protestor and anyone who doesn't recognize that Obama is on the side of working Americans hasn't been paying attention. Anyone that thinks the military is being recruited to squash OWS is delusional and a conspiracy theorist. There are no facts to back that fear mongering. It's like listening to right-wingnuts thinking there is a "war on Christmas". Get real people. Obama is doing a great job - a hell of a lot better than we have had in a long time - and some progressives who originally supported Obama will look for anything to complain about now that he hasn't turned out to be superman.
December 24, 2011 1:07pm
I agree with most of what you say. I voted for Obama and will vote again if only because he is the lesser evil. However we are not at war against a terrorist threat. You can only be at war against a nation not an idea. T fight ideas you need 'hearts and minds' strategies not combat. The war against Iraq was not against terrorists. None existed there before the US invasion of that country which had been Americas ally against Iran. Now Iraq is full of terrorists. The war in Afghanistan has achieved nothing except create vast numbers of terrorists. Usama bin Ladin was not killed due to the war and that could have been achieved in the manner that it was achieved, by a small secret attack but with the savings of thousands of lives and billions of dollars! The war had nothing to do with it and has merely increased security risks to America.
Watch this and think again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SMHBEAeNa-c
December 23, 2011 2:13pm
LIBERTYBELL777
Thank you for saying what I would also want to say. Obama is doing a great Job. We just don't know what happens behind closed doors. Go to the gov. website and read about all of the presidential orders and signings. Look around you, and observe how the congress and Supreme Court is trying to put breaks on everything and everyone but the 1%. I would challange anyone to take over his job, along with the craziness of the Repulicans and the The Tea party, ( tom delay's party). This is a crazy world. the country is only as strong as the smallest person.> Ask yourself " am I a part of the solution or part of the problem> THANK YOU again for speaking for me.
December 23, 2011 12:57pm
Either President Obama does not understand why people elected him, which I doubt, or he is verifying that he never was what we voted for. This is far from the first instance of him acting as a right-winger rather than a liberal, or even like a centrist--should such a creature actually exist. His renewal of the state of emergency with its suspension of constitutionally mandated rights is him retaining his options for detaining US citizens in military custody as enemy combatants and/or terrorists. The Occupy people have been denied the rights they are guaranteed in the First Amendment. The quasi-military riot police are sent in with impunity whenever someone thinks they've quite had enough of that 99% rabble. Obama has deliberately, intentionally made us all vulnerable to indefinite detention without habeas corpus.
The U.S. democracy is seriously ill, perhaps already terminal from an internal corruption much like cancer. What are we doing about it? Unless you're "Occupying" you are not just doing nothing, you are in reality an integral part of the corruption. As to those believing that nothing can be done, don't worry. Just go quietly as directed by the riot police when your turn comes.
December 23, 2011 12:45pm
First they came for the communists,and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.Then they came for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak out for me.--Martin Niemoller
December 23, 2011 12:34pm
It looks to me, despite the headlines, that 1) the President has had the right to detain anyone indefinitely, etc., since 9/14/2001 by virtue of the state of emergency, which means the power has been there for a long time but only activated after 9/11; and 2) President Obama chose not to change that situation at this time. Sen. Levin, the media, et al., are trying to spin the situation to suggest this power to detain was something new that they were trying to prevent, but President Obama insisted on getting. so: President Obama declined to change the status quo at this time, nothing more.
December 23, 2011 12:42pm
Either President Obama does not understand why people elected him, which I doubt, or he is proving that he is not what we voted for. This is not the first instance of him acting more like a right-winger than a liberal, or even like a centrist--should such a creature actually exist. His administration's renewal of the state of emergency, with its suspension of constitutionally mandated rights is him keeping his options open for detaining US citizens in military custody because they are accused of being enemy combatants, and/or terrorists. The Occupy people seem not to have the rights they are guaranteed in the First Amendment. The quasi-military riot police are sent in with impunity whenever someone thinks they've quite had enough of that 99% rabble. Obama has deliberately, intentionally made us all vulnerable to detention without habeas corpus.
The U.S. democracy is seriously ill, perhaps already terminal, and the cause is internal, a corruption akin to cancer. What are we doing about it? Unless you're "Occupying" the answer is nothing. And anyone saying that nothing can be done is not likely to complain when what's coming actually arrives, but instead go quietly as directed by the riot police.
December 23, 2011 12:15pm
I find this worrisome and think someone at a press conference should ask the President specifically why he would do this. My concern, as I'm sure it is other people's, is that this is being used or will be used to incarcerate Occupy protestors.
December 23, 2011 10:50am
This isn't to "protect the American people". This was done so that they could protect themselves from the America people. Why would they need this? Just look at all the people in the street demanding economic equality and justice. Obama and both parties in congress have absolutely no intention of changing anything they are doing for people. They are going to continue to write all laws with corporate benefit as the goal. If the economy worsens, more people are sure to fill it's ranks. The police have already demonstrated the limits of their ability to control and disband. So they wrote this provision in NDAA so that they can utilize the military to squash opposition. The truth is that every member of congress who signed on and Obama are enemy combatants and should be imprisoned. They should be given a fair trial, even though they would deny us of that civil right.